This chapter discusses measuring service quality and customer satisfaction in the hospitality industry. It defines key concepts like quality, satisfaction, expectations and perceptions. It examines theories of quality like Gronroos' model of technical and functional quality. A popular model for measuring quality, SERVQUAL, is also introduced, which defines five key dimensions: reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness. The relationship between quality and satisfaction is explored, noting that quality is an attitude while satisfaction is transaction-specific. The chapter stresses that delivering high quality service is crucial for hospitality businesses to satisfy customers and achieve competitive advantages.
1. Chapter 10
Measuring Service Quality
and Customer Satisfaction
Martin O'Neill
INTRODUCTION
The increased significance of the services sector to the global economy
has led to a heightened concern by practitioners as well as consumers
regarding the quality of services being offered (Sung et al., 1997). Not
surprisingly, the concept of quality and its relationship with the service
industries has become a major preoccupation of many within this sector,
not least the hospitality industry. Hospitality operations now have to serve
an increasingly discerning public, who are now more eager than ever to
complain and transfer their allegiances to perceived providers of quality
services. This, coupled with the increasingly hostile nature of the hospital-
ity environment, has forced many within the industry to invest in the
delivery of higher levels of service quality as a means to achieving com-
petitive differentiation. An integral part of any organization's attempt to
deliver on this front is a commitment to a process of continuous quality
improvement. In turn, this requires the support of a systematic approach to
quality measurement.
Interest in the measurement of service quality is thus understandably
high, and measuring the quality of the service experience is now an inte-
gral part of most managers' responsibilities. The challenge, however, is to
identify and implement the most appropriate measurement tools for their
operation. In stressing the importance of service quality to the hospitality
sector, this chapter seeks to investigate the conceptualization and measure-
ment of service quality and the relationships hetween service quality,
customer satisfaction, and customer retention. In so doing, it shall identify
and critically examine a number of the more popular techniques common-
ly employed within the hospitality industry.
759
2. 760 Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
DEFINING QUALITY
IN THE CONTEXT OF SERVICE
Numerous attempts have been made to define service quality and the
closely related concept of customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1980; Tse and
Wilton, 1988). Unlike product quality, which in itself is particularly hard
to define, the search for a working definition of service quality is further
complicated by the highly transitory and intangible nature of most ser-
vices. At its most basic, quality has been defined as "conforming to re-
quirements" (Crosby, 1984). This implies that organizations must establish
requirements and specifications. Once established, the quality goal of the
various functions of an organization is to comply strictly with these speci-
fications. However, the questions remain, whose requirements and whose
specifications (Palmer, O'Neill, and Begg.s, 1998)? Thus a second series of
definitions state that quality is all about fitness for use, a definition based
primarily on satisfying customers' needs (Juran, 1982). These two defini-
tions can be united in the concept of customer-perceived quality, where
quality can be defined only by customers and occurs where an organiza-
tion supplies goods or services to a specification that satisfies their needs.
There have been numerous attempts to encapsulate the essential nature
of the service quality construct in the form of theoretical models. One of
the earliest models is that described by Gronroos (1983), which relates the
level of experienced quality to both technical and functional dimensions of
service provision (see Figure 10.1):
• Technical qualiiy refers to the result of the service and/or the ques-
tion, what has been provided?
• Functional quality, on the other hand, refers to the way the service
has been delivered and relates to the question, how has the service
been provided?
Technical quality refers to the relatively quantifiable aspects of the
service that consumers experience during their interactions with a service
firm. Because it can be easily measured by both consumer and supplier, it
becomes an important basis for judging service quality (Palmer, 1998).
According to Gronroos (1988, 1990), however, these more technical as-
pects of a service are easily copied, and competitive positioning may be
easily lost. Functional quality, in contrast, can be used to create a competi-
tive edge by focusing on the more personal aspects of the service encoun-
ter. Gronroos (1984) argues that technical quality is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for higher levels of service quality and that functional
quality is likely to be more important than technical quality if the latter is
at least of a sufficient standard. Saleh and Ryan (1991) concur with this
3. C
M to 0)
•a
£ >• E
O.*:; c
O "S. o
Atti
nvir
§^
UJ
0)
•o
o
CO
3
O
0)
o
CD
UJ
CC
o
CO
00
en
o
o
c
o
O
I
767
4. 162 Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
viewpoint and take it a step further, suggesting that the quality of function-
al service may even offset problems with the technical component experi-
enced by consumers. While a technical problem should not occur, the
reaction of the service provider to it, if it does, may contribute to positive
customer perceptions ofthe service provided.
Berry, Parasuraman, and Zeithaml {1988} support this concept by argu-
ing that Crosby's (1984) definition of quality as "conforming to require-
ments" should be rephrased as "conformance to customer specifications."
In addressing the evaluation process used by customers to assess service
quality, they conclude that service quality may be defined as the discrep-
ancy between customers' expectations and perceptions (see Figure 10.2).
If expectations are met, service quality is perceived to be satisfactory; if
unmet, less than satisfactory; if exceeded, more than satisfactory.
Quality evaluations are both process and output based. They derive
from the service process as well as the service outcome. The manner in
which the service is delivered may thus be a crucial component of the
service from the customer's point of view. To put it another way, it is not
just what is delivered but how it is delivered that determines the custom-
er's overall perception of service quality.
In most instances, the customer receives a combination of both material
and personal service. The material service refers to the more tangible,
technical, and objectively measurable elements of the product or service
being supplied. Personal service, on the other hand, refers to what might
be better described as the more intangible, functional, subjective, and/or
relational elements of the service encounter. To provide good service,
therefore, a balance is needed between both personal and material needs.
More often than not it is the more relational factors that will create a
lasting impression in the customer's mind. By concentrating on the devel-
opment and provision of these relational elements, organizations are now
better able to add value in the eyes of the customer. For it is in adding
value in the eyes of the customer that good service is achieved, quality is
perceived, and satisfaction achieved.
First and foremost, then, service quality is a customer issue. It is the
customer who will determine whether they have received it. To put it
another way, customer perception is everything. As harsh as it may sound,
it does not matter what the service provider thinks; if the customer is not
satisfied then the service has failed. Customers' perceptions are their real-
ity (Cook, 1997). In turn, their perception of the service provided will be
determined by their expectations. If the service experienced lives up to
their expectations, customers will be satisfied. If the treatment they receive
is less than expected, this constitutes bad service. In short, customers want
5. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 163
FIGURE 10.2. Set^'ice Quality: The Fit Between Customer Expectations
and Perceptions
Word-of-mouth
recommendation
Tangible elements Human elements
of the service of the service
Techrilcal Functional
qualities: qualities:
Reliability Attitude of staff
Accuracy Appearance
Promptness Atmosphere
Expertise Responsiveness
Empathy
Source: Morgan, 1996.
their expectations to be met completely and consistently. One critical
question remains, however: What do customers want and how do they
define quality?
DETERMINANTS OE SERVICE QUALITY
This is the difficulty from a provision and measurement point of view.
The factors affecting customer satisfaction and service quality are as many
and as varied as the number of potential customers themselves. Different
6. 164 Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
things are important to different people for different reasons and as such
are perceived in different ways. For example, the same factor can be
interpreted in many different ways, by many different people, and even, on
occasion, by the same person depending upon the time of day, mood,
attitude, and so on.
Evidence suggests that successful organizations are able to diagnose
their customer expectations fully and satisfy them completely, during each
and every service encounter (Zemke and Schaaf, 1990). Service leaders
have the uncanny ability of understanding implicit and even latent custom-
er requirements. These latent features may be described as features that
customers want but do not know are available and hence are unable to
articulate in discussions with service suppliers. Consequently, there is no
way of guaranteeing their delivery. When delivered, however, they present
the provider with the opportunity to not only satisfy, but also greatly
exceed customer expectations. Ramaswamy (1996) reinforces this view-
point by arguing that while nondelivery of such needs may not necessarily
dissatisfy the customer, a company that does manage to address them even
partially may experience a nonlinear increase in customer satisfaction.
Naturally, identification of service quality dimensions aids in the mea-
surement, understanding, and satisfaction of customer needs and wants.
This information comes from customers themselves and also from front-
line staff who daily come into contact with them. While extensive research
has been carried out in the area (Berry, 1983; Gronroos, 1984; Garvin,
1987; Fitsimmons and Maurer, 1991), the work of Parasuraman, Zeitham!,
and Berry (1988) stands out in terms of helping to clarify how customers
define service quality. Their initial qualitative study identified underlying
dimensions of service quality, each of which relates to the customers'
confidence in those providing the service. As a result of further extensive
research these criteria were collapsed into five more specific components:
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, empathy, and assurance, which have
formed the basis of many measurement techniques. Although widely re-
ferred to as SERVQUAL, the five elements can more easily be remem-
bered through the acronym "RATER" (Tenner and DeTorro, 1992):
1. Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and
accurately
2. Asstirance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability
to inspire trust and confidence
3. Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel
4. Empathy: Caring, individualized attention, and appearance of personnel
5. Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt
service
7. Measuring Sen'ice Quality and Customer Satisfaction 165
According to Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990), the various
statistical analyses conducted in constructing SERVQUAL revealed con-
siderable correlation among items representing several of the original ten
dimensions for evaluating service quality. The authors believe that these
five dimensions are a concise representation of the "core criteria that
customers employ in evaluating service quality" (p. 20).
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Previous reference has been made to the concept of customer satisfaction
in the context of customer-perceived service quality. Indeed, a review of the
literature will reveal that both terms are quite often used interchangeably,
which has caused confusion. While both concepts are related and appear to
be merging, there are still gaps in the understanding of the two constructs,
their relationship to each other, and their antecedents and consequences
(Gwynne, Devlin, and Ennew, 1998). A distinction needs to be made be-
tween both. According to Cronin and Taylor (1992, p. 56), "this distinction
is important to both managers and researchers alike, because service provid-
ers need to know whether their objective should be to have consumers who
are satisfied with their performance or to deliver the maximum levei of
perceived service quality."
Oliver (1981, p. 27) takes the view that satisfaction is "the emotional
reaction following a disconfirmation experience." Getty and Thompson
(1994, p. 9) define it as a '"summary psychological state experienced by the
consumer when confirmed or disconfirmed expectations exist with respect
to a specific service transaction or experience." In fact, the most commonly
used representation of customer satisfaction is the disconfirmation approach
(Ramaswamy, 1996), in which satisfaction is related to the variation be-
tween a customer's prepurchase expectations and their postpurchase per-
ceptions of the actual service performance. According to disconfirmation
theory, the extent of satisfaction or dissatisfaction that a customer has with a
particular service enaiunter is determined by the difference between the
customer's expectations of performance and the actual perceived perfor-
mance of the service (Oliver, 1996). Any difference between them is referred
to as disconfirmation.
If the service experienced is better than expected, then positive discon-
firmation or high levels of satisfaction will result. If, however, the service
performance falls short of what was expected, then negative disconfirma-
tion or dissatisfaction will result. Confirmation or zero disconfirmation
results when perceived performance just meets the customer's expecta-
tions or when the service experience is much as expected in the customer's
8. 166 Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
eyes. Satisfaction may thus be viewed as being situation, encounter, or
transaction specific.
Perceived quality, on the other hand, may be viewed as a global attitudi-
nal judgment associated with the superiority of the service experience over
time (Getty and Thompson, 1994). As such, it is dynamic and less transac-
tion specific (Parasuraman, ZeithamI, and Berry, 1988). In other words, it
has attitudinal properties and acts as a global value judgment. According
to Lovelock, Patterson, and Walker (1998), the important distinction is
that " . . . satisfaction is experience-dependent—you must experience the
service to feel a degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Perceived service
quality on the other hand is not experience-dependent . . . perceived
service quality is formed over multiple service encounters."
Both constructs arc distinct but related concepts, which can be used to
evaluate a specific service incident or overall attitudes toward a service
encounter. Service quality does differ from satisfaction, however, in that it
is a cognitive evaluation and objective attributes are used to assess quality.
While satisfaction can result from any aspect of an organization, whether
quality related or not, service quality perceptions are specifically related to
quality attributes or dimensions (Oliver, 1993).
Not surprisingly, there has been considerable debate concerning the
nature of the relationship between these constructs. Although the majority
of research suggests that service quality is a vital antecedent to customer
satisfaction (Parasuraman, ZeithamI, and Berry, 1985; Cronin and Taylor,
1992) there is now strong evidence to suggest that satisfaction may be a
vital antecedent of service quality (Oliver, 1981; Bitner, 1990). Regardless
of which view is taken, the relationship between satisfaction and service
quality is strong when examined from cither direction. Satisfaction affects
assessments of service quality, and assessments of service quality affect
satisfaction (McAlexander, Kaldenberg, and Koenig, 1994). In turn, both
are vital in helping today's customers frame their future purchase inten-
tions. The importance of both to today's hospitality professional is thus
paramount.
SERVICE QUALITY AND THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY
In today's hospitality environment, the true measure of company suc-
cess lies in an organization's ability to continually satisfy customers. In-
creasingly, customers are demanding value for money in terms of both the
price/quality ratio and the actual quality of the product or service being
offered. To ensure market success, hospitality organizations of all types
9. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 167
are now being forced to stand back and take a long hard look at the way
they are currently doing business.
Given the increasingly competitive nature of the hospitality environ-
ment, industry professionals must now concern themselves with not only
increasing market share, but also satisfying and maintaining the existing
customer base. Consequently, a large proportion of organizational effort is
now being directed at "both getting and keeping customers" (Christopher,
Payne, and Ballantyne, 1991). Evidence suggests that an organization's
ability to deliver consistently on the service quality front will without
doubt go a long way toward achieving this central business objective.
Indeed, the importance of service quality and its relationship with custom-
er satisfaction, brand loyalty, and market share has long been lauded by
those in the hospitality field (Knutson, 1988). Both are now viewed as
fundamental to the well-being of individual customers, which will have a
significant effect on postpurchase perceptions and, in turn, future purchase
decisions.
In an attempt to achieve sustained competitive advantage, hospitality
organizations are now investing quite heavily in a host of service quality
improvement initiatives. By and large the majority of these initiatives have
found form through the British Standards Institute, the European Quality
Award, the Malcolm Baldrlge National Ouality Award, the Edwards Dem-
ing Prize, or derivatives thereof. In addition, the hospitality industry has
also been investing quite heavily in raising quality standards through human
resource development. Such initiatives include the Investors in People
Award, the Welcome Host Initiative, and various vocational qualification
schemes. Oliver (1996) describes these initiatives as belonging to the total
quality management movement, advocating organizational strategies and
changes, which are thought to make a firm more customer friendly. In this
context, "customer satisfaction is thought to be a natural outgrt^wth of
optimal organisational design, and of instilling the appropriate organisation-
al culture, personnel training and customer responsiveness within employee
ranks. In short, it is believed that the attainment of satisfaction will be
enhanced if these practices are followed" (Oliver, 1996, p. 7).
In proposing a more behavioral focus, Oliver (1996) goes on to state
that such managerial practices alone cannot guarantee customer satisfac-
tion, for the principal reason that management cannot see "inside the head
of its constituents." By adopting a more behavioral focus, in contrast,
"managers may be better able to see the workings of the consumer's mind,
and in so doing may be better placed to consistently satisfy customer
demands" (p. 7). The central tenet of any such approach is the study of
consumer perceptions of service quality or that process by which individu-
10. 168 Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
als select, categorize, and interpret purchase and nonpurchase-related
stimuli, which, in turn, may lead to cither first time, repeat, or transferred
patronage.
According to Van Dcr Wagcn (1994, p. 4), individual "customers have
many different perceptions which are influenced by their education, up-
bringing, experience and many other factors." As hospitality professionals
whose future very much depends upon these customers' perceptions of
actual service delivery, we must strive to gain an understanding of how we
are performing in the customers' eyes. As Bank (1992, p. 14) states, "the
idea is to stay ahead of the customer, to anticipate his or her needs . . . so
that when he or she articulates the need you have already planned for it
and are ready (ahead of the competition) to meet it." Knowledge of cus-
tomer perceptions of the service offering would undoubtedly aid hospital-
ity professionals in this process.
Simply stated, today's hospitality professional must consider the mea-
surement of service quality an integral part of any quality improvement
exercise.
MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY
IN THE HOSPITALITY CONTEXT
An integral part of any organization's attempt to instill a "quality cul-
ture" is a commitment to a process of "continuous improvement" (Witt
and Muhlemann, 1995). To support this, a systematic approach to quality
measurement is needed. This is especially true of businesses whose pre-
dominant product is service as, unlike their counterparts in the manufac-
turing sector, they have fewer objective measures of quality by which to
judge their production (Hudson and Sheppard, 1998). Cronin and Taylor
(1992, p. 50) concur with this viewpoint, stating that managers need tn
know "what aspects of a particular service best define its quality." In turn,
this should enable the organization to take up a competitive position based
upon its ability to deliver that which is demanded as opposed to that which
the organization perceives to be in demand. The fact is, clear, sustained,
and continuous quality improvement is not possible without some indica-
tion of quality performance. To know the real effect of changes over time,
managers need measures to compare the quality performance of the ser-
vice (Edvardsson, Thomasson, and Ovretveit, 1994).
Ramaswamy (1996) identifies three different sets of measures with
which a company must be concerned:
11. Measuring Sen'ice Quality and Customer Satisfaction 169
1. Service performance measures are primarily internally focused and
evaluate the current performance ofthe service and ensure that it is
continuing to reliably meet the design specifications.
2. Customer measures, on the other hand, are both internal and exter-
nally focused, aimed at assessing the impact of the service perfor-
mance on customers.
3. Financial measures are indicators ofthe financial heaith ofthe orga-
nization.
Naturally, the correlation between financial and customer measures will
determine the revenue-generating potential of the service, while the rela-
tionship between service performance measures and customer measures
will give some indication as to how the service is performing in the
customers' eyes. In turn, this will have a direct bearing on a company's
financial performance and overall market share.
It cannot be assumed, however, that a service that continues to meet
internal performance standards will continue to provide the desired level
of customer satisfaction. Customer-perceived measures must be indepen-
dently developed and correlated with performance. These measures will
direct future improvement efforts aimed at both improving operational
efficiency and satisfying and retaining customers.
Although traditionally it has been easy for operators to claim that the
unique characteristics of services precluded any attempt at measurement,
the present-day competitive environment has forced a serious rethinking
of this attitude. This is especially true of the hotel industry, where an
increasing oversupply of hotel accommodation worldwide has forced
managers to invest in the delivery of higher levels of service quality as a
competitive strategy aimed at differentiating their product and service
offering. As evidence continues to suggest that continual measurement is
one way of differentiating the successful long-term quality improvement
program, it has become imperative for managers to provide for its applica-
tion in the hospitality context (Ixwis, 1987; Getty and Thompson, 1994).
This is not to deny the complexity of the task. Indeed, as Edvardsson,
Thomasson, and Ovretveit (1994) point out, managers face a number of
difficulties in measuring service quality:
• First, many measurement systems are fiawed, as those designing and
using the system do not know enough about what is to be measured,
the purpose, and how the results are to be used.
• A second problem is that managers quite often do not measure quali-
ty throughout the service chain. While some may choose to concen-
trate solely on internal performance measures, others may concen-
12. 170 Serxice Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
trate on external customer measures only. Of course, what is required
is a balance between both and an understanding that while quality
may be defined at the "moment of truth," the process of providing
quality starts well before the actual interaction with the customer.
More often than not, externally perceived quality ratings will reflect
the level of internal performance.
• A third problem is that measuring customer perceptions may of itself
increase expectations. In many cases, the very mention of quality im-
provement is enough to create a heightened sense of expectation on
the part of the customer.
• A final pitfall is too much measurement. Organizations run the risk
of tiring both customers and staff with too much measurement. Given
the time and expense required lo undertake such an exercise, it is
imperative that it is not overdone.
These authors emphasize two issues in particular in an attempt to avoid
these difficulties: identifying what should be measured and designing the
most appropriate measurement instrument for gathering and analyzing the
pertaining data.
In answering the first question, what to measure. Palmer (1998) sug-
gests that organizations should set about asking the following key ques-
tions:
• What do customers consider the important features of the service?
• What level of those features do they expect?
• How do customers perceive service delivery?
By answering each of these questions the organization will be better
able to establish clear goals and standards for quality improvement as well
as being better placed to offer customers the right level of service quality.
The question of how to measure service quality depends upon what is to
be measured. Recent years have witnessed the development of a plethora
of measurement tools and techniques aimed at assessing service quality
and customer satisfaction levels within the hotel sector. This is apparent in
both the academic and industrial press and to the uninitiated is a veritable
minefield of terminology. Such terms as SERVOUAL, SERVPERF, DINE-
SERV, LODGSERV, LODGQUAL. and more recently GROVOUALhave
become common parlance among academics and practitioners. Added to
the full range of quantitative and qualitative methods available, it quickly
becomes clear that the most critical challenge for managers is to identify
13. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 171
and implement the most appropriate methods for measuring the quality of
the service experience (Ford and Bach, 1997).
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Today's hotel manager faces many choices when it comes to measuring
customer perceptions of service quality. A full range of measurement
techniques is now available for the assessment of service quality, each
with its own particular strengths and weaknesses, depending upon what is
being measured and why it is being measured. The difficulty is that many
of these techniques are too costly, too complicated, or totally inappropriate
for what is being measured.
By and large, hoteliers employ a mix of qualitative and quantitative
methods, choosing to collect feedback through a combination of observa-
tion and/or communication techniques. Qualitative methods include inter-
views, focus groups, customer role-play, and observation research and,
although highly subjective, nonetheless provide an interesting insight into
the mind-set of individual customers. Quantitative techniques, on the other
hand, collect information on the basis of a predetermined standard and as
such are more objective and measurable in nature. In the majority of cases
this information is collected by surveys, which can be administered either
face-to-face (as in the case of exit surveys), indirectly (by telephone), or
simply left for the customer to fill out later (as in the case of room surveys
and customer comment cards). Ford and Bach (1997) provide a detailed
listing of the many techniques available to managers as well as addressing
the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. A summary of these tech-
niques and others along with their principal advantages and disadvantages
is provided in Table 10.1.
A number of the more popular techniques shall now he addressed in
relation to their suitability to the hotel industry and, where permission has
been granted, examples of each will be provided.
Unobtrusive Observation Measures
Unobtrusive observation measures have been widely applied within the
broad tourism sector and recently to assess visitor satisfaction levels with
festivals and events (Seaton, 1997). According to Ford and Bach (1997),
this is the simplest and least expensive technique to assess service quality
in hotel operations. In short, managers are required to take a step back
from operational duty in order to observe, map, and analyze the many
14. J 72 Sen'ice Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
TABLE 10,1, Summary of Data Collection Techniques
Techniques Principal Advantage Principal Disadvantage
Management Observation No inconvenience to cus- Presence of observer may
tomer influence delivery
Employee Feedback Employee knowledge of Employee bias
delivery problems
Comment Cards Suggest company interest Comments generally re-
in customer opinions flect extremes
Mail Surveys Ability to gather valid and Time lag and effect of
representative samples memory retention
On-Site Personal Interview Detailed guest feedback Sample representation
Telephone Interviews Representative and valid Customer inconvenience
sample of target customers
Critical Incident Tectinique Identification of what is Low response rate
critical to customer
Disconfirmation Models Directs improvement Administration
Focus Groups Information rich Symptom identification
Mystery Shoppers Consistent and unbiased Cost
interactions that take place daily between the organization and its custom-
ers. The principal advantage of this technique is that it can identify real-
time service problems and sources of customer inconvenience, which can
then be put right on the spot. Observers have a detailed knowledge of their
own operations and are therefore quite adept at noticing service problems
as well as the causes of these problems. Another great benefit of this
method is its minimal inconvenience to the customer, with the majority of
observation research being conducted without the customer's knowledge.
Quite often it also gives management a greater appreciation of the pres-
sures on frontline employees.
This method has problems, however. In the first instance, management
observers require highly specialized training, which may prove both time
consuming and expensive. Observation also raises a number of ethical
concerns in relation to invasion of privacy. Consequently, many organiza-
tions inform both customers and employees that they are being observed
for the purposes of quality improvement. Also, employees may underper-
form because they feel intimidated by the constant pressure of manage-
ment observation. Thus there may be great benefit in extending the ob-
servation role to include frontline employees. Frontline staff may be much
more critical of their own roles within the organization, and peer evalua-
15. Measuring Sen'ice Quality and Customer Satisfaction 173
tion may be much better received by employees than "yet another ill-
informed" management appraisal. This brings us to another very lucrative
source of information—employee feedback.
Employee Feedback
It is very important to realize that much of service quality as perceived
by the customer is related to moments when the service supplier and the
customer meet face-to-fact;. More than any other factor it is the quality of
our people, in both the front and back of the house, which determine
success as defined at this moment of truth. It only makes sense, therefore,
that employee feedback of customer perceptions be sought and that em-
ployees be used as vehicles for gathering such information.
Most customers feel at ease with frontline service personnel and often
like to talk about the service they have received. It is much easier to report a
service failure verbally than in writing. This presents a fantastic opportunity
for hoteliers to gain firsthand and up-to-the-minute customer feedback. The
benefits are clear: problems that are identified can be put right immediately
or at least prior to the customer's departure. This not only generates infor-
mation about the quality of the guest experience, but boosts employee
morale in terms of the satisfaction derived from an immediate service re-
covery. On the other hand, managers need to be aware of the problem of
employee bias. All too often what gets reported is only a fraction of what
should be reported. There is also a danger that employees will be somewhat
selective with the truth.
As a result, many hoteliers are now encouraging frontline staff to solicit
and record feedback during their many encounters with customers. This
may be done either formally or informally through various interview ap-
proaches, as in the case of checkout or bill settlement, or by random sam-
pling. This information may be gathered on a daily or weekly basis by
means of one-to-one reporting, departmental interviews, or employee report
cards (see Figure 10.3). Above all, it provides a source of instant feedback
on customer perceptions which, if they are to be of any use to management,
must be acted upon immediately.
One-to-One Customer Interviews
The customer interview is perhaps one of the least employed, yet most
effective techniques for achieving a deeper understanding of customer per-
ceptions of service quality. In the main, such interviews are carefully struc-
tured and follow a closely worded script with little room for deviation. The
16. 174 Sen'ice Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
FIGURE 10.3. Employee Feedback Card Used by the ACCOR Hotel Group in
Western Australia to Gather Feedback from Both Employees and Customers
MTE: / /
DtPARTMENt:
• FrontOffke Q Housekeeping QF&B
Q Engineering Q Other
(Eg. Room Servidng, Check In, Restaurant - breakfast)
Q Pteas* tick the appropriate box
DETAILS: MAIN PROBLEM/SUCCESS CATEGORY
Q People (e.g., quality of service}
Q Process/Policy (e.g., Timing of service, hotel policy)
Q Equipment (e,g., Cracled plates, computer breakdown]
Q Other te.g., Hotel surroundings - noisy room^ stained carpet)
• GUEST EXPERIENCE or • EMPLOYEE FEEDBACK
GuestName: EmployeeKame:
RoomNumber: Department:
JHAHK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM
YOUR EFFORT WILL HELP TO IMPROVE THE SERVICE WE OFFER OUR GUESTS
Source: Reproduced with the permission of the ACCOR Hotel Group, Perth,
Western Australia.
17. Measuring Sen'ice Quality and Customer Satisfaction 175
great benefit, of course, relates to the richness of the information that may
be gathered and the fact that it is current. It aiso enables the company to set
about building a relationship with customers that should have a knock-on
effect in itself in terms of retention. The customer will fee! valued and is left
with an impression thai the company really cares for his or her personal
well-being.
The major problem with this technique is the time and expense required
to conduct such interviews, not to mention the specialized training and
customer intrusion issues. As a result, many companies tend to restrict the
use of this technique to particular times of the year and to particular types of
customer, namely their larger corporate accounts, special events, and indi-
vidual complainants. Many hotels deem it essential to follow up on good
and bad survey results and individual letters of complaint. For instance, the
JDondalup Resort Ctimplex in Western Australia makes it a priority to
follow up on each and every function held in the resort. The resort liases
with all function customers both pre- and postevent to ensure that their
needs have been fully met. If a problem becomes apparent, customers are
invited to a one-on-one meeting with the property manager to assess the
specific nature of their dissatisfaction. Whereas once customers would have
been lucky to receive a letter of apology, many managers now realize that
this more personal approach allows tor a greater chance of recovery and
differentiation in the marketplace.
Focus Groups
It is not uncommon for hotels to issue invitations to their customers to
attend focus groups. Having their beginnings in group therapy as used by
psychiatrists, these groups are designed to get customers talking in depth
and at length about the organization's ability to meet their needs. More
specifically, these sessions are designed to ascertain what the customer
deems important in terms of quality provision. The underlying premise is
that there is safety in numbers and one person's response may become a
stimulus for another to contribute. This technique is rather useful in that it
involves customers not only in identifying problems but also in their
solution, which from a customer's point of view is highly rewarding.
Once again, expense is a problem, especially for the small- to medium-
sized enterprise. Hoteliers are normally expected to meet the guest's ex-
penses in traveling to participate in these sessions, not to mention the fee for
professional facilitators. It is not unusual, though, for guests to receive an
open invitation to attend weekly team improvement meetings. In fact, such
invitations are frequently posted in many hotel lobbies. This may be viewed
as a more open form of the quality improvement circle, where guests are
18. 176 Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
actively encouraged to contribute and offer suggestions based upon direct
experience. The author can testify that he has attended many such sessions
and has found them most rewarding indeed.
Critical Incident Technique
Critical incident is a technique designed to elicit details about services
that "particularly dissatisfy or delight customers" (Lovelock, Patterson,
and Walker, 1998, p. 137). This information may be collected during
one-to-one interviews or, as is more common in the hotel industry, by
means of in-house comment cards (see Figure 10.4). Comments from
cards and transcripts from interviews are collated to identify common
problems or sources of delight. Unlike other qualitative methods of glean-
ing feedback, customers are not forced to give answers to predetermined
potential problems. Rather, this technique seeks to encourage them to
record their most memorable incidents from the service experience. Ac-
cording to Hope and Muhlemann (1997) the technique is useful in a
number of respects:
• It facilitates the identification of specific attributes of service which
have a significant impact upon customers.
• This can be used to redesign the service delivery system around the
more important customer-perceived quality attributes.
Customer Surveys
Surveys are by far the most common and most abused data collection
technique employed by the hotel sector. These surveys can be employed
on a regular basis, as in the ease of guest comment cards, or less regularly,
as in the case of the more detailed attribution techniques now being
employed. Of importance here is the validity, reliability, and practicability
of the particular survey instrument.
Customer Comment Cards
The more regular survey techniques normally take the form of simple
comment cards placed on dining room tables and in guest bedrooms. They
can range from the very simple (see Figure 10.5) to the much more compli-
cated (see Figure 10.6). Customers are normally invited to rate the quality
of individual attributes of the service experience on a predetermined scale,
as well as the overall quality of the service received. In the majority of cases
19. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 177
FIGURE 10.4. An Example of a Critical Incident Card Used by Rydges Hotel,
Perth, Western Australia
I mpressions are important to us. That's why we'd like to hear what
you think about your stay with us. And if you have any suggestions
on how you think we could improve things, we'd like to hear them, too.
Just jot down your thoughts here, then drop it off at the reception desk.
Thank you.
Your name:
Room number: Date:
Note: This card adopts a largely unstructured approach to assessing guests'
perceptions of service quality. Reproduced with the permission of Rydges
Hotel, Perth, Western Australia.
eustomcrs are also invited to offer individual eomments on any aspect of the
service not covered by the survey.
The major advantage of this scheme is its simplicity in terms of data
collection. Once placed, comment cards require no further employee effort
or time in terms of administration. As such they are a very cheap means of
highlighting repeated service problems and, in particular, problems that
hoteliers would otherwise never become aware of If positive feedback is
provided they also present management with an excellent opportunity to
acknowledge it to staff, which in turn acts as an excellent incentive to
improve performance. Such cards, depending upon where they are placed,
20. 178 Senice Qtiality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
FIGURE 10,5, Typical Comment Card Taken from the Western Australian Res-
taurant Sector
YOUR COMMENTS COUNT
OATF. TIME: _
rAFF.
QUALITY OF FOOD
EMPLOYEE COURTESY
FOOD TASTE
SPEED OE SERVICE
MENU 1 VARIETY
CLEANLINESS
VALUE
HYGIENE
FOOD PRESENTATION
AMBIENCE / COMFORT
ANY OTHER COMMENTS:
Note: This card uses a combination of structured and unstructured approaches
to assess guests' perceptions.
21. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 179
FIGURE 10.6. Excerpt from a More Detailed Comment Card Used by the Hyatt
Regency, Perth, Western Australia
RESTAURANTS
Which restaurant did you dine in during your stay?
(select one)
EXPECTATIONS Not met Met Exceeded N/A
Friendliness of staff 1 2 3 4
Timeliness of meai 1 2 3 4
Quality of food 1 2 3 4
Menu variety 1 2 3 4
Selection of beverages 1 2 3 4
Value for money 1 2 3 4
Atmosphere/Ambience 1 2 3 4
Any comments you wourd like to make regarding our restaurants.
Would you come back to this restaurant? q Yes q No
CHECK OUT
EXPECTATIONS Not met Met Exceeded N/A
Checked out efficiently 1 2 3 4
Accuracy of account 1 2 3 4
Account easy to understand 1 2 3 4
Account timely 1 2 3 4
Any comments you would like to make regarding your checl^ 3Ut.
Note.' This card uses a combination of both direct disconfirmation and unstruc-
tured approaches to assess guests' perceptions of service quality. Reproduced
with the permission of the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Perth, Western Australia.
22. 180 Senice Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
also convey a warm, caring attitude to patrons, which is highly conducive
to establishing an ongoing relationship with them. Depending upon the
simplicity of design they may actually be a pleasure to fill in.
A major disadvantage, however, is their very low return rate. As they
rely totally on voluntary customer participation, they are more often than
not ignored as clutter. According to Simpson (1997, p. 83), "so many
companies have got onto the bandwagon of customer feedback that there
is now a customer backlash from being inundated with surveys, question-
naires, checklists and the like. They are not responding." It is not uncom-
mon therefore to record a response rate as low as 20 percent, which of
course is next to meaningless.
In the majority of eases, respondents are either bored, have been de-
lighted, or are highly dissatisfied with the service encounter. Thus, those
that are collected may not reflect general customer feeling. In recognition
of this fact many hoteliers are now offering incentives to guests to encour-
age greater participation. Such incentives include free meals, weekend
breaks, and/or room discounts during the customer's next stay.
Another serious problem with this technique is the time-lag factor. At
best the cards are analyzed weekly, which normally means that by the time
managers have gotten around to rectifying recorded problems the custom-
er has already moved on. Where appropriate, therefore, and regardless of
return rate, cards should be analyzed daily. A common praetice in the
restaurant sector is for shift leaders to analyze results at the end of a shift.
Information regarding service problems is then passed on to the next shift
leader so that problems can be resolved within the day.
Attribution Techniques
According to Palmer (1998), quality is so complex a concept that it
cannot satisfactorily be measured by a series of ad hoc studies. This, and
the increasing importanee of serviee quality as a means of gaining compet-
itive advantage, has led to the recent development and application of a
series of more detailed survey techniques aimed at measuring customer-
perceived service quality with the hospitatity industry.
The majority of these more detailed quantitative studies have adopted
the confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm, which seeks to explore the
relationship between a customer's prepurchase expectations and percep-
tions of service performance. As consumers evaluate service performance,
they typically cannot help but compare that performance to what they
expected. In turn these expectations provide a baseline for the assessment
of a customer's level of satisfaction. These models contend that service
quality can be conceptualized as the difference between what a consumer
23. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 181
expects to receive and their perceptions of actual delivery. They hold that
product and service performance exceeding some form of standard leads
to satisfaction, while performance failing helow this standard results in
dissatisfaction (Wilkie, 1994; Wells and Prensky, 1996; Oliver, 1996).
According to Mowen (1995), this expectancy disconfirmation approach
helps explain consumer perceptions of service quaiity as well as consumer
satisfaction judgments.
Researchers have adopted hoth inferred and direet disconfirmation
techniques. The inferred approach seeks to estimate the size of any gap
between the customer's expectations and the actual performance received.
Expectations and perceptions are measured separately, producing a rela-
tive measure of how well the service has performed compared to what the
consumer expected. Direet disconfirmation, on the other hand, provides an
absolute measure of performance. It is a measure of how the service has
performed on the basis of the customer's absolute level of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction.
Preeminent among these studies has been the work of Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Berry (1985) and the development of their SERVQUAL
instrument. Their research has concentrated on the belief that service
quality is measurable, but only in the eyes of the consumer. They take the
view that service is of high quality when customers' expectations are
confirmed by subsequent service delivery.
They postulate that, as services are less tangible than goods, the dimen-
sions on which customers form expectations may also be different. Initial
qualitative research has led to the identification of five dimensions (tangi-
bles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy—referred to pre-
viously as RATER) on which customers evaluate service quality. If expec-
tancies are diseonfirmed on any of these dimensions, satisfaction gaps
result, and the customer is likely to record a poor rating of the service.
Over the years these researchers have developed their initial qualitative
studies into the more comprehensive statistical tool known as SERV-
QUAL, which is now widely used to measure service quaiity throughout
the services sector.
SERVQUAL has heen extensively researched to validate its psychomet-
ric properties and while it has attracted criticism for its conceptualization of
quality measurement issues, it has nonetheless been applied in a wide vari-
ety of sectors (Lewis, 1987; Lee and Hing, 1995; Ryan and Cliff, 1997;
Lam, Wong, and Yeung, 1997). It takes the form of a two-part twenty-two-
item questionnaire (see Appendix, p. 186), which seeks to estimate custom-
ers' preconsumption expectations of service as well as postconsumption
perceptions of actual service received. Customers are asked to complete
24. 182 Sen'ice Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
each section ofthe survey using a seven-point Likert scale that extends from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Measures of service quality can
be derived by subtracting the expectation scores frotn perception scores,
which can also be weighted to take account of the relative importance of
each quality dimension. In turn, these importance scores allow managers to
focus attention where it is likely to have most impact or where it is most
needed. The scores across all the questionnaires are summed and averaged
to find a score for each question. The results of the questions within each
dimension are then averaged to obtain a score for each dimension, which
can then be used to highlight how well an organization is performing in
light of customer expectations.
The benefits derived from this approach are clear and may be summa-
rized as follows:
• SERVQUAL gives management a clear indication of how the company
is performing in the customer's eyes both individually and en masse.
• It helps prioritize customer needs, wants, and expectations by identify-
ing what is most important in the customer's eyes. As stated, this infor-
mation can be gleaned from the weighting of individual dimensions.
• It allows the organization to set an expected standard of performance
that can then be communicated to all staff and patrons.
• It can also identify the existence of any gaps between customers and
providers and thereby helps focus improvement efforts by directing
organizational energies at closing these gaps.
Each of these benefits can be clearly illustrated by the example shown
in Table 10.2, taken from a comparative study conducted by the author in
the Northern Ireland tourism sector. The information provided gives a
clear indication of how the company is performing across all dimensions.
TABLE 10,2, SERVQUAL Scores
Difference
Dimension Perceptions Expectations Score
Tangibles 6,37 5.83 0,54
Assurance 6.07 5,82 0,25
Reliability 6.38 6,28 0,10
Responsiveness 5.45 6,10 -0.65
Empathy 6,66 6,08 0.58
Source: O'Neill, 1997.
25. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 183
In addition to prioritizing what is important from the customer's point of
view, it also identifies a clear gap in relation to the responsiveness of the
service provided. In turn this directed organizational improvement eftbrts
in relation to wait and delivery times.
Over the years, there have been many adaptations of the original
SERVQUAL tool to suit the specific operational characteristics of the
hospitality environment (Getty and Thompson, 1994; Knutson, Stevens,
and Patton, 1995; Walker, 1996; Doweil, Hing, and Leiper. 1998). As a
result, such terms as LODGQUAL, LODGSERV, DINESERV, and GROV-
QUAL have become common in the industry. Each of these instruments
has sought to develop and build upon the original and more generic
SERVQUAL tool. In the case of LODGQUAL, Getty and Thompson
(1994) identified three basic dimensions of service quality in the lodging
industry. The tangibles and reliability dimensions are as previously de-
fined. The authors identified a third dimension, however, contact, which
was a composite of SERVQUAL's responsiveness, empathy, and assur-
ance. Their results suggest that these three dimensions are "indistinguish-
able and, in general, represent the patron's contact experience with the
employees" (Getty and Thompson, 1994, p. 8). LODGSERV (Knutson et
al., 1990) is aiso built on the same five dimensions as SERVQUAL but
contains questions specifically tailored to the lodging industry. Further
work by the authors led to the development of DINESERV, which was
tailored to better capture the uniqueness of the dining experience.
From an academic viewpoint, the original SERVQUAL instrument has
been challenged on a number of fronts (Palmer, O'Neill, and Beggs,
1998). Questions have been raised about the dimensions of SERVQUAL
and whether they are consistent across industries, its psychometric proper-
ties, and how expectations are formed (Babakus and Boiler, 1992; Brown,
Churchill, and Peter, 1993; ZeithamI, Berry, and Parasuraman, 1993).
While these criticisms have generated quite substantial debate among
academics, they are not addressed in any great detail in this chapter.
Industrialists, it seems, are more concerned with the more practical meth-
odological issues that present difficulty from an administration point of
view. For example, some researchers have suggested better wording for
some of the scale items (Bolton and Drew, 1991). Customers find it hard to
differentiate between many of the scale items, particularly when "negative
forms of questions are used" (Hope and Muhlemann, 1997, p. 288). For
example, consider the following: "the company strives to get it right the
first time" and "the company gets it right the first time."
There has also been debate about whether it is practical to ask consum-
ers about their expectations of a service immediately before consumption
26. 184 Sen'ice Quality Management in Hospitality. Tourism, and Leisure
and their perceptions of performance immediately after. Customers may
become tired or distressed as a result of being asked to complete both
surveys. Some analyses have therefore used combined single scales to
measure gaps (Carman, 1990; Babakus and Boiler, 1992). It has been
suggested that expectations may not exist or be clear enough in respond-
ents' minds to act as a benchmark against which perceptions are assessed
(Iacobucci, Grayson, and Omstrom, 1994). Consequently customers have
a tendency to cirele "strongly agree" or "very important" for all aspects.
Furthermore, it is argued that expectations are only formed as a result of
previous service encounters, that is, perceptions feed directly into expecta-
tions (Kahneman and Miller, 1986).
For all of these reasons many researchers now believe that a more direct
approach to the measurement of service quality is now needed. It is felt that
performance-only-based measures of service quality may be an improved
means of measuring the service quality construct (Churchill and Surprenant,
1982; Bolton and Drew, 1991; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). This has led to the
development and application of a more direct form of disconfirmation tech-
nique such as SERVPERF. Like SERVQUAL, this approaeh requires the
customer to rate a provider's service performance on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Unlike
SERVQUAL, however, it does not seek to estimate difference scores; rather,
it seeks to assess consumers' posteonsumption perceptions only. As such, it
is an absolute rating of customer attitudes toward service quality.
According to Hope and Muhlemann (1997) this approach overcomes
some of the problems raised regarding SERVQUAL, namely: raising ex-
pectations, administration of the two parts of the questionnaire, and the
statistical properties of difference scores. Taking a single measure of ser-
vice performance is seen to circumvent all of these issues. It is felt, how-
ever, that from an operational point of view, much useful information is
lost when performance-only measures are taken. This can be clearly dem-
onstrated through the example shown in Table 10.3.
Following the administration of SERVQUAL, it is clear that tangibility
is the dimension of the service encounter furthest from meeting customer
expectations. It can also be seen that the reliability dimension recorded the
highest expectation rating, which is in line with other studies that the
author has conducted and which no doubt confirms the relative importance
of reliable service to the majority of customers.
From an operational standpoint this information highlights the need for
quality improvement efforts in all areas, but most specifically in relation to
the more tangible aspects of the serviee encounter. If a performance-only
measure were taken, tangibles would still top the list of quality improve-
27. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 755
TABLE 10,3, Inferred and Direct Disconfirmation Scores
Difference
Dimension Perceptions Expectations Score
Tangibles 2.15 4,64 -2,49
Assurance 6.74 4,85 1,89
Reliability 6,49 5,82 0,67
Responsiveness 6,21 4,26 1,95
Empathy 5,96 4,62 1,34
Source: Gabbie and O'Neill, 1997,
ment, but the order of the other dimensions would change, placing reliabil-
ity as the second most important factor from the customer's point of view.
As a consequence, the prioritization of any organizational improvement
effort may be wrong and even misdirected.
Having worked with both techniques, the author believes they are be-
yond the concern of the majority of hotel operators, who are more inter-
ested in the practicalities of the tool and its ability to provide timely and
relevant customer feedback and assist with quality improvement. It is not
surprising to note therefore that neither technique has been widely applied
within the hospitality industry. They have mostly been used as part of
some academic research exercise. It should also be borne in mind that
many industrialists do not have the required level of expertise to adminis-
ter and/or analyze the data from such quantitative techniques. As a result,
they arc required to bring in an outside body who normally charges quite a
large consulting fee. Thus, cost is also a factor.
CONCLUSION
Galileo once wrote "count what is countable, measure what is measur-
able, and what is not measurable make measurable" (Edvardsson, Tho-
masson, and Ovretveit, 1994, p. 178). No business today can afford to
ignore the customer. There is simply too much choice within the wider
competitive environment. If customers are not already, then they must
become the focal point of all organizational effort. More than at any other
time in recent business history their satisfaction is critical to future corpo-
rate survival. In turn, this will be determined by an organization's ability to
deliver consistently on the service quality front.
28. 186 Service Quality Management In Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
Gone are the days when organizations could differentiate on the basis of
their product offerings alone. Gone are the days when organizations deter-
mined their own levels of service and quality. Gone aiso are the days when
the provision of customer service was seen as something that only the
"service industries" did. What is clear is that whether production or ser-
vice oriented, organizations from all economic sectors are now turning to
service quality as the only remaining means ot" differentiating their busi-
ness offering, turning one-time customers into longer-term clients. Thh
requires an approach to quality improvement that concentrates on the
continual measurement of service quality as perceived by the customer. In
short, what gets measured gets done, completed, and continually improved
upon.
APPENDIX: SERVQUAL INSTRUMENT
Please complete Part A by indicating your expectations of hotels tn general. Then complete Part B
indicating your perceptions of this hotel in particular Please answer on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree
with the statement) to 7 {strongly agree).
[PAHT Al
Directions please complete the following questionnaire pertainir^g to service quality. If you feel the
features mentioned in each statement are essential in your judgment of the hotel, please circle 7.
However if you feel the features mentioned are of little importance, please circle number 1.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
(1) An excellent hotel will have modem-looking equipment, e.g., 1...2...3,.,4. ,5..6..7
dining facility, bar facility, crockery, cutlery, etc
(2) The physical facilities, e.g., buildings, signs, dining naom decor, 1...2...3.,,4. .5...6,.,7
lighting, carpet, etc., at an excellent hotel will be visually
appealir>9.
(3) Staff at an excellent hotel will appear neal, e.g., uniform, 1...2...3...4. Fi R .7
grooming, etc.
(4) Materials associated with the service, e.g., pamphlets, 1...2,,,3...4 .5...6...7
statements, table wine, serviettes will be visually appealing in an
excellent hotel.
(5) When an excellent hotel promises to do something by a certain 1,..2,..3...4. .5. .6.7
time, it will do so.
(6) When patrons have a problem, an excellent hotel will sfiow 1...2,..3...4. .5...6...7
genuine interest in solving it, e.g., an error in a bill.
(7) An excellent hotel will perform service right the first time. 1...2...3...4. "i 6...7
(8) An excellent hotel will provide its services at the time if promises 1 .2...3...4. .5...6,..7
to do so.
(9) An excellent hotel will insist on error-free service. 1...2...3...4. .5...6...7
(10) Staff at an excellent hotel will tell patrons exactly when services 1...2...3...4. .5...6,.7
will be performed.
29. Measuring Service Quality and Ctistomer Satisfaction 187
(11) Staff at an excellent hotel will give prompt service to patrons. 1 . 2, ,3 .4. 5 ..6...7
(t2) Staff at anexc^ellent hotel will always t)G willing to help patrons, 1,,,2,,.3,,.4...5...6,,,7
(13) Staff at an excellent hotel will never be too busy to respond, 1,,,2,..3,,,4,,,5.,.6 , 7
(t4) The behavior of staff at an excellent hotel will instill confidence tn 1,,,2...3 ,,4,,,5.,.6,,,7
patrons
(15) Patrons of an excellent hotel wiUteel safe in their transactions, 1,,,2.,.3,,,4,,.5 .,6,,,7
(16) Statf at an excellent hotel will be consistently courteous with 1,,,2,..3,,,4,,,5,,.6,,,7
patrons.
(17) Staff at an excellent hotel will have the knowledge to answer 1,,,2,..3,,,4,,,5,,,6..,7
patrons' requests.
(18) Staff at an excellent hotel will give patrons incJividualized 1,..2,,,3...4.,.5,,,6...7
attention,
(19) An excellent hotel will have opening hours convenient to all of its 1,,,2,,,3...4,..5,,,6.,7
patrons,
(20) An excellent hotel will have staff who give its patrons persor^l 1,,,2,,,3...4,.5,,,6...7
attention.
(21) An excellent hotel will have the patrons' best interests at heart, 1...2,,,3,,.4 .5, .6,.,7
(22) The staff of an excellent hotel will urKlerstand the specific needs 1...2,,.3,..4..5,,.6,..7
of their patrons.
Strongly Strongly
[PART B| Disagree Agree
(1) The hotel has modem-toking equipment, 1..,2,,,3,,,4,..5,..6,,,7
(2) The physical facilities at the hotel are visually appealing. 1 ..,2,.,3,,,4.,,5...6,,,7
(3) Staff at the hotel appear neat, 1,.2,,3,,,4,.,5..6 .7
(4) Materials associated with the service are visually appealing. 1,..2,..3,,,4,,,5,.,6,,,7
(5) When the hotel promised to do something by a certain time, 1,,,2...3,,,4,,,5,.,6,,,7
it did it
(6) When patrons have problems, the hotel shows a genuine interest 1,,,2...3,,,4,,,5...6,,,7
in solving tfiem.
(7) The hotel performs the service right the first time, 1 ,,,2,,.3,,,4,,,5,,,6,,7
(8) The hotel provides its sen/ices at tlie time it promises to do so, 1,,,2,,.3,.4,,,5,,,6...7
(9) The hotel insists on en-or-free service. 1,,,2...3,.4,,,5.,6,,,7
(10) Staff at the hotel were able to tell patrons exactly when services 1,..2...3,.,4,,,5...6. .7
would be performed
(11) Staff at the hotel give prompt service to the patrons, 1,,,2.,3...4,,5,,.6...7
(12) Staff at the hotel are always willing to help patrons, 1,,,2,,,3...4,,,5,,,6...7
(13) Staff at the hotel are never too busy to respond to patrons, 1,,,2,,.3,.,4.,,5,,.6,.,7
(14) The behavior of staff instills confidence in patrons. 1,,,2,.,3...4,,,5,..6...7
(15) Patrons of the hotel feel safe in their transactions, 1,,,2,,,3...4,,,5,,,6...7
(16) Staff at the hotel are consistently courteous with patrons, 1...2...3...4 .5.6., 7
30. 188 Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
(17) Staff at the hotel have the knowledge to answer patrons, 1,,.2.,,3...4,,5...6,,.7
(18) The hotel gives patrons individualized attention. 1,,,2,,,3..4,,5,..6,,,7
(19) The hotel has opening hours convenient to all of its patrons. 1,.,2,,,3,,,4,,,5,,,6,,,7
(20) The hotel has staff who give its patrons personalized attention, 1,,,2,,,3.,4,,,5,,,6,,,7
(21) The hotel has the patrons' best interests at heart, 1.,,2,,,3.. 4.,.5...6,,,7
(22) The staff at the hotel understand the specific needs of their 1..,2,,,3...4,.,5...6,,,7
patrons.
REFERENCES
Babakus, E. and Boiler, G. (1992). An Etnpirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL
Scale. Journal of Business Research, 24 (May): 253-268,
Bank, J. (1992). The Essence of Total Quality Management. London; Prentice
Hall.
Berry, L.L. (1983). Relationship Marketing, tn L.L. Berry et al. (eds.). Emerging
Perspectives in Services Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Associa-
tion.
Berry, L.L. (1997). Multiple Method Listening: The Building of a Service Quality
Information System. Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Conference
(Marketing Without Borders), Manchester Metropolitan University, July 8-10.
Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., and Zeithaml. V. (1985). Quality Counts in Services
Too. Bu.siness Horizons, 28 (t): 44-52.
Berry, L.L., Parastiraman, A., and Zeithaml. V. (1988). The Service Quality
Puzzle. Business Horizons, 28 (5): 35-43.
Bitner, M.J. (1990). Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Sur-
roundings and Employee Responses. Journal of Marketing, 54 (April): 69-82.
Bolton, R. and Drew, J.H. (1991). A Multistage Model of Customers" Assess-
ments of Service Quality and Value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4):
375-384.
Brown, T, Churchill, G., and Peter, J.P. (1993). Research Note: Improving the
Measurement of Service QuaWty. Journal of Retailing, 69 (Spring): 127-139.
Carman, J.M. (1990): Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment
of the SERVQUAL Dimensions. Jotmial of Retailing, 66 (1): 33-55.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., and Ballantyne. D. (1991). Relationship Marketing:
Bringing Quality, Customer Service and Marketing Together. Oxford: Butter-
worth Heinemann.
Churchill, G.A. and Suprenant, C. (1982). An Investigation into the Determinants
of Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19: 491-504.
Cook, S, (1997). Customer Care, Second Edition. London: Kogan Page.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examina-
tion and Extension, Journal of Marketing, 56 (July): 55-68.
Crosby, P.B. (1984), Quality Without Tears. New York: New American Library.
Dowell, R.. Hing, N., and Uiper, N. (1998). GROVQUAL: A New Research Tool
for Measuring Excessive Service in Hospitality. Working Paper for the Austra-
31. Measuring Sen'ice Quality and Customer Satisfaction 189
Han Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Griffith University, Gold-
coast, Queensland, Australia, February 11-14.
Edvardsson, B.. Thomasson, B., and Ovretveit, J. (1994). Quality of Service:
Making 11 Really Work. London: McGraw-Hill.
Fitsimmons, J. and Maurer. G. (1991). A Walk Through Audit to Improve Restaurant
Perfitrmance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 31 (4):
94-99.
Ford, R.C. and Bach, S.A. (1997). Measuring Hotel Service Ouality: Tools for
Gaining the Competitive Edge. Florida International University Hospitality
Review, 15 (1, Spring); 83-95.
Gabbie, O. and O'Neill, M. (1997). SERVOUAL and the Northern Ireland Hotel
Sector: A Comparative Analysis. Managing Service Quality, 1 (1): 43-49.
Garvin, D.A. (1987). Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality. Harvard
Business Review, 65 (6): 101-109.
Getty, J.M. and Thompson. K.N. (1994). The Relation.ship Between Ouality,
Satisfaction and Recommending Behaviour in Lodging Decisions. J o u r « a / o /
Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 2 (3): 3-22.
Gronroos, C. (1983). Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector,
Report No. 83-104, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administra-
tion, Helsingfors.
Gronroos, C. (1984). Service Management and Marketing. Lexington, MA: Lex-
ington Books.
Gronroos, C. (1988). Service Quality: The Six Certeria of Good Perceived Service
Ouality. Review of Business, 9 (3): 10-13.
Gronroos, C. (1990). Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Mo-
ments of Truth in Service Competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Gwynne, A.L., Devlin, J., and Ennew, C.T. (1998). Service Ouality and Customer
Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Analysis. The British Academy of Marketing
Annual Conference, Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University,
July 8-10, 1998: 186-191.
Hope, C. and Muhlemann, A. (1997). Service Operations Management. Prentice
Hall.
Hudson, S. and Shephard, G.W.H. (1998). Measuring Service Ouality at Tourist
Destinations: An Application of Importance-Performance Analysis to an Al-
pine Ski Resort. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7 (3): 61-77.
Iacobucci, D., Grayson, K.A., and Omstrom, O.L. (1994). The Calculus of Ser-
vice Ouality and Customer Satisfaction: Theoretical and Empirical Differenti-
ation and Integration. In T.A. Swartz, D.E. Bowen, and S.W. Brown (Eds.),
Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Third Edition (pp. 1-68),
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Juran, J.M. (1982). Upper Management and Quality. New York: Juran Institute.
Kahneman, D. and Miller, D.T. (1986). Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its
. Psychological Review, 93: 136-153.
32. 190 Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure
Knutson, B.J. (1988). Frequent Travellers: Making Them Happy and Bringing
Them Back. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29 ( t ) :
83-87.
Knutson, B.J., Stevens, P., and Parton, M. (1995). DINESERV: Measuring Service
Quality in Quick Service. Casual/Theme and Fine Dining Restaurants. Vour/w/
of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 3 (2): 35-44.
Knutson, B,J,, Stevens, P, Wullaert, C , Patron, M., and Yokoyama, F. (1990). The
Service Scoreboard: A Ser^-ice Quality Measurement Tool for the Hospitality
Industry, Hospitality Education and Research Journal 14 (2): 413-420.
Lam, T., Wong, A., and Yeung, S. (1997). Measuring Service Quality in Clubs: An
Application of the SERVQUAL Instrument. Australian.I ournal of Hospitality
Management. 4 ( I ) : 7-14.
Lee, Y.L. and Hing, N. (1995). Measuring Quality in Restaurant Operations: An
Application of the SERVQUAL Instrument. InternationalJournal of Hospital-
ity Management, 14 (3-4): 293-310.
Lewis, R.C. (1987). The Measurement of Gaps in the Quality of Hotel Services.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 6 (2): 83-88.
Lovelock, C.H., Patterson, P C , and Walker, R.H. (1998). Services Marketing.
Sydney: Prentice Hall.
McAlexander, J.H., Kaldenberg, D.Q., and Koenig, H. (1994). Service Quality
Mcasmemen. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 14 (3, Fall): 34-39.
Morgan, M. (1996). Marketing for Leisure and Tourism. London: Prentice Hall.
Mowen, J.C. (1995). Consumer Behaviour, Fourth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Oliver, R.L. (1980): A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November):
460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (1981). Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in
Retail Setiings. Journal of Retailing, 57: 25-48.
Oliver, R.L. (1993). Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction
Response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20: 418-430.
Oliver, R.L. (1996). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Q"Neill, M. (1997). Investing in People: A Perspective from the Northern Ireland
Tourism Sector. Managing Service Quality, 7 (6): 292-306.
Palmer, A. (1998). Principles of Services Marketing. Second Edition. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Palmer, A., O'Neill, M.A., and Beggs, W.R. (1998). Time Delay Effects of Ser-
vice Quality Measurement: An Exploratory Empirical Study, Academy of
Marketing Annual Conference (Adding Value Through Marketing), Sheffield
Hallam University, July 8-10, 1998.
Parasuraman, A., ZeithamI, V.A., and Berry, L.L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of
Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Market-
ing, 49 (Fal): 41-50.
33. Measuring Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 191
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVOUAL: A Multi-
ple Item Scate for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Jour-
nal of Retailing, 64(1): 12-37.
Ramaswamy, R. (1996;. Design and Management of Service Processes: Keeping
Customers for Life (pp. 362-363). Reading, U.K.: Addison Wesley.
Ryan, C. and ClifT, A. (1997). Do Travel Agencies Measure Up to Customer
Expectations? An Empirical Investigation of Travel Agencies" Service Quality
as Measured by SEKVQVAL. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 6(2):
t-28.
Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1991). Analysing Service Quality In the Hospitality
Industry Using the SERVQUAL Model. The Service Industries Journal, U
(July): 324-343.
Seaton, A. (1997). Unobtrusive Observational Measures As a Qualitative Exten-
sion of Visitor Surveys at Festivals and Events: Mass Observation Revisited.
Journal of Travel Research, 35 (4): 25-30.
Simpson, S.N. {991). Serviee Into Profit. Perth, Australia: TAFE Publications of
Western Australia.
Sung. H.S., Yeong, H.L., Yonghee, P, and Geon, C.S. (1997). The Impact of
Consumer Involvement on the Consumers' Perception of Service Quality—
Focusing on the Korean Hotel Industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Market-
ing, 6 (2): 33-52.
Tenner, A.R. and DeToro, l.J. (1992). Total Quality Management: Three Steps to
Continuous Improvement. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tse, D.K. and Wilton, PC. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation:
An Extenson. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May): 204-212.
Van Der Wagen, L. (1994). Building Quality Service with Competency Based
Human Resource Managemenl. Chatswood, Australia: Butterworth-Heinne-
man.
Walker, R.H. (1996). Towards Identifying How Visitors to Tasmania Define and
Assess Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry. Australian Journal of Hos-
pitality Management, 3 (2): 27-39.
Wells, W. and Prensky, D. (1996). Consumer Behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Wilkie, W. (1994). Consumer Behavior, Third Edition. New York: John Wiley.
Witt, C. and Muhlemann, A. (1995). Service Quality in Airlines. Tourism Eco-
nomics, 1 (i): 33-49.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry L., and Parasuraman, A. (1993). The Nature and Determi-
nants of Customer Expectations of Service. yo«r/i«/ of ihe Academy of Market-
ing Science, 21 (1): 1-12.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L. (1990). Delivering Quality Ser-
vice: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free
Press.
Zemke, R. and Schaaf, D. (199t)). The Service Edge. New York: Penguin.